No ad Hominem attacks against the speaker. Only address the argument being made

That's about it.

I saw only assertions.

Be specific. Name one. Maybe I should add to be specific when commenting.

I have a better idea. How about you state your case, whatever it is, and then we can go from there.

Simple. I think he's right and you prove him wrong in a specific statement he said.

I'm not certain how presuming the Bible validates a young Earth can be considered evidence of anything other than a low standard of evidence. Plus, you're trying to shift the burden over to respondents when you have not backed your claim or even established clearly what your position is.

No ad Hominem attacks against the speaker. Only address the argument being made

That's about it.

Instead of me regurgitating information readily available and easy to find, read the refutations here and tell me where you still see holes from the side of science and we can work to fill those: http://www.talkorigins.org...

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

1. It's just a mix up on my part. I could give the results for if I divide or multiply but I rather just do one equation.

2. How come you criticize me for applying what we see today is the same that has always been but you do the same thing when you measure the currant rate of how the layers formed?

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

You sure you want to go there? That assumption is the basis for status quo age-of-the-earth measurements, so you can't just throw it out when it suits.

There's another interesting moon thing - when our boys were up there they put a mirror on the moon that we can bounce a laser off of, and get precise distance measurements. We found that the moon is moving away from the earth at something like 1.5" year, if I recall correctly. The moon's orbit is losing energy to the tides. And the tides, the stirring of the oceans, is essential to life. So it's another reminder of how real world systems run down.

I'm not necessarily a YEC myself - I don't see that the week of Genesis 1 has to be the beginning of *everything*, but on the other hand, I think some of the ages thrown around are probably wildly exaggerated. The solar system is a system, and life is a system. Systems have to be wound up to start, and then if they are not actively maintained, they run down.

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

1. It's just a mix up on my part. I could give the results for if I divide or multiply but I rather just do one equation.

I'm asking to you support why that equation is the correct one.

2. How come you criticize me for applying what we see today is the same that has always been but you do the same thing when you measure the currant rate of how the layers formed?

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

You sure you want to go there? That assumption is the basis for status quo age-of-the-earth measurements, so you can't just throw it out when it suits.

I'm not sure what you're argument is here. Are you suggesting that if some processes occur linearly or consistently across time then everything has to?

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

1. It's just a mix up on my part. I could give the results for if I divide or multiply but I rather just do one equation.

I'm asking to you support why that equation is the correct one.

I'm giving you a fair chance. If the 840 tons per year would still produce way more than we see then it should call into question the age of the moon. Now I'm having trouble converting 840 tons on the moon into how much per square foot of dust should we see.

2. How come you criticize me for applying what we see today is the same that has always been but you do the same thing when you measure the currant rate of how the layers formed?

No we don't.

Yes you do. Take for example the Grand Canyon. You say that it was formed over millions of years because of the currant erosion rate.

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

1. It's just a mix up on my part. I could give the results for if I divide or multiply but I rather just do one equation.

I'm asking to you support why that equation is the correct one.

I'm giving you a fair chance. If the 840 tons per year would still produce way more than we see then it should call into question the age of the moon. Now I'm having trouble converting 840 tons on the moon into how much per square foot of dust should we see.

I'm giving you a fair chance. Support why either equation is appropriate.

2. How come you criticize me for applying what we see today is the same that has always been but you do the same thing when you measure the currant rate of how the layers formed?

No we don't.

Yes you do. Take for example the Grand Canyon. You say that it was formed over millions of years because of the currant erosion rate.

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

They said additional research shows that the rate of accumulation now appears to be 1/20th of the 0.04 inch/millennium claim, so assuming linear change in rate of accumulation is wrong. Therefore, the moon dust argument isn't valid.

I'm taking the moon dust issue. The currant rate of moon dust collecting is .04 inches per thousand years. Divide 4.5 billion by a thousand and you get 4,500,000. Now multiply .04 by that and you get 18000 inches on the moon. Divide that by twelve and you get 1,500 feet of dust. It's still too deep for what we measured on the moon. This is one of the few times that I love math.

They said additional research shows that the rate of accumulation now appears to be 1/20th of the 0.04 inch/millennium claim, so assuming linear change in rate of accumulation is wrong. Therefore, the moon dust argument isn't valid.

.04 divided by 20 is .002. .002 x 4500000 is 9000 inches. Divide that by twelve and you get 750 feet of dust. It's still way too much for what we actually see. It still a valid argument.

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

1. It's just a mix up on my part. I could give the results for if I divide or multiply but I rather just do one equation.

I'm asking to you support why that equation is the correct one.

I'm giving you a fair chance. If the 840 tons per year would still produce way more than we see then it should call into question the age of the moon. Now I'm having trouble converting 840 tons on the moon into how much per square foot of dust should we see.

I'm giving you a fair chance. Support why either equation is appropriate.

Because if either equation is linear and hasn't changed much and its too much dust than we actually see then the moon being 4.5 billion years old is not valid.

2. How come you criticize me for applying what we see today is the same that has always been but you do the same thing when you measure the currant rate of how the layers formed?

No we don't.

Yes you do. Take for example the Grand Canyon. You say that it was formed over millions of years because of the currant erosion rate.

No I don't.

1. Fine, your comrades do

2. If that's not the way the gran canyon is measured then how exactly?

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

I forgot, do you multply 4.5 billion by 840 (the lowest measure given for the moon dust) or do you divide 4.5 billion by 840 to get how much per square inch should be up there?

If you don't know, then you probably shouldn't be in a position to be evaluating such claims. How did you ascertain that this single measurement is a global average that has maintained linearly across time?

1. It's just a mix up on my part. I could give the results for if I divide or multiply but I rather just do one equation.

I'm asking to you support why that equation is the correct one.

I'm giving you a fair chance. If the 840 tons per year would still produce way more than we see then it should call into question the age of the moon. Now I'm having trouble converting 840 tons on the moon into how much per square foot of dust should we see.

I'm giving you a fair chance. Support why either equation is appropriate.

Because if either equation is linear and hasn't changed much and its too much dust than we actually see then the moon being 4.5 billion years old is not valid.

Right. IF the equation is linear. By you haven't shown why that equation is appropriate.

2. How come you criticize me for applying what we see today is the same that has always been but you do the same thing when you measure the currant rate of how the layers formed?

No we don't.

Yes you do. Take for example the Grand Canyon. You say that it was formed over millions of years because of the currant erosion rate.

No I don't.

1. Fine, your comrades do

2. If that's not the way the gran canyon is measured then how exactly?